<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>On Jan 23, 2012, at 8:26 PM, "perl-list" <<a href="mailto:perl-list@network1.net">perl-list@network1.net</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div style="font-family: 'Andale Mono'; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">Do
we know if the draft document submission to the IETF regarding the inclusion of the link layer address in the DHCPv6 packets that Frank Sweetser mentions was ever done? If so, how was the document received at the IETF?</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
There's certainly interest in this, although it's somewhat sad that DHCPv4 is driving features in DHCPv6.
<div style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.300781); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.234375); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.234375);"><br>
</span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div style="font-family: 'Andale Mono'; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Andale Mono'; font-size: small; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">Are
they planning to amend DHCPv6 specs with the requirement of the link layer address?</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
It could never be a requirement, first because it's too late, and second because doing so would create massive interoperability problems. It might be added as an option, though.</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Andale Mono'; font-size: small; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">I
don't see how we, at our organization, can proceed with IPv6 rollout using DHCPv6 without being able to somehow correlate both a DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 assignment to a single client device. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Why not? Can you write up a use case that explains the problem that this creates for you? It's important that you say what it is that you can't do without this, not simply say "because I need it," which is unfortunately what we usually hear. The
most convincing argument I've heard for this is that the MAC address is what's printed on the box the device comes in, and you can read it and enter it into your inventory with a bar code scanner. But from the way you said this, it sounds like your use case
is different.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>